Forum:Vote for a Move
VOTING HAS ENDED, WE ARE NOT MOVING. THANK YOU FOR VOICING YOUR OPINIONS. Voting For (8/1) * - Well, I'll start with the skin, since it's our catalyst: it's horrible! Beyond that, the other options are either gone or about to be gone, and the thing is so incredibly foreign from anything that's come before it's highly restrictive. Everything was rearranged, squished, morphed or otherwise mutilated: useful links are confined to a bar at the top of the page or a little pop-up menu at the bottom you have to make for yourself. Colors are out of whack. There's massive commercials up top and to the side unless you use a special skin edit. I could go on, but I won't. Perhaps more annoying is that, from what Tony led me to understand, they didn't listen to any community input over this whole ordeal, and only offered keeping a former skin when a large wiki threatened to leave (which the wikia did anyways, even after getting the skin, just to make a point). This is unlikely to be the end; wikia's always tried to enforce their long-term plan on us, so I say we bug out before they get the chance. --Am I a Lion, or a Lamb? Or a Boy? Saint o The Lost Books 22:54, November 5, 2010 (UTC) * - Despite "118's fix", Oasis sucks. I support a move all the way, as stated on the fourm on this matter. * — As per the above reasons. In addition, it seems that wikia isn't very good at listening to its community that it claims to care so much about. Whether this was about something drastic like reconfiguring wikicode, or something minor like removing blog features, or a somewhat-alarming-but-irritating-nonetheless kind of thing a new skin, it clearly shows that wikia doesn't care jack shit about us. They only keep to our interests as long as they receive the funding, and the MonoBook option was simply a mixed blessing; a half-hearted attempt to keep wikis from leaving at minimum cost. To be honest, I'm beyond caring about Oasis at this point, but recent changes have given me a wake-up call about the staff at wikia. I don't know about you, but their recent actions have said a lot to me, and I don't like it. So what do we do? When all else fails, you throw their stupidity in their faces and leave. And if enough wikis do the same and cause a serious decline in funding, maybe it'll finally get the message across. [[User:Sona 'Demal|'There is no glory without honour']] * - Wikia has not listened, and they are losing Wikias, fast. They say they care about us, but I think it's for money. So let's boycott this thing. Let's get the hell outta here. EliteMaster117 04:30, November 6, 2010 (UTC) * - As per the above reasons as well as Wikia's arrogance in the matter. I can see Oasis being used for the small wikis, notably those that are considered "ghost towns" or those with less than 100 pages. Also this will be our chance to start anew. * - As per above. The Era icon is screwed up, and I can't edit the smaller sections, which is a massive pain in...every type of remotely long article, because I've got to do a lot of scrolling.Norman-123 13:41, November 6, 2010 (UTC) * - I now like Oasis, but we need to leave before the Wikia is FUBAR. The community is only getting more aggressive, and will most likely continue escalating the situation unless the staff do something, which they won't. We need to leave ASAP before a wiki war begins. Therefore, I am changing my vote. A.O.A., Administrator of Ace Combat Fanon 18:45, November 6, 2010 (UTC) * - Oasis isn't that terrible, what I really dislike is wikia's acting on the matter. We may be working free on their space, but they have to remember that we're also the source of their income; the wiki staff need to realize that it's a symbiotic relationship - that is, they need to give, as do we. That includes not major decisions that one party doesn't like. - Neutral (5/2) * - Leaning towards Actene's comment.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 23:58, November 5, 2010 (UTC) * I hate the new skin, but, we still have MonoBook which is good. Seems as if the Pros and Cons are the same, at the moment. Joshua (Talk) 10:07, November 6, 2010 (UTC) * - I dislike most aspects of the skin, but at the same time there is some good things with it (the "My Tools" is actually quite handy once you've gotten used to it). Combined with the css fix and Subs' tinkering, it's really not that bad. Then again, I dislike it when people in a position of authority (wiki staff in this case) don't care about those under them. Overall, I'm very conflicted. **Do note that Wikia's terms of use prohibit many CSS changes; for example, you aren't allowed to disable the utterly pointless image attribution feature with CSS. --Mary-Kate 21:21, November 6, 2010 (UTC) * — While I loathe the hell out of Wikia's inability to properly manage a community, as well as their ignorance to it's opinion, moving due to a simple theme change is just irresponsible. For the moment, we should just stay here until Wikia gives us enough reason to throw some tea over the side of a ship. CT Sig small **Two forced skins, Special:Contact, useless and annoying features and innocent people getting globally banned aren't enough for you? --Mary-Kate 21:21, November 6, 2010 (UTC) ***You better watch your tone when replying to our editor's votes, myself especially. I'm simply stating that Halo Fanon hasn't necessarily felt the ignorance of Wikia like Halopedia and other wikis have. And quite frankly, seeing has you have only a mere two edits, neither of which are fan fiction in nature, you really have no reason to state your opinion on internal matters such as this. CT Sig small * - I've kinda been hanging in the background, watching this whole thing play out. And, like some of the folks above me, I dislike the new skin and hate Wikia's lack af caring on the issue.However I do not support a move, at least not to shoutwiki, that place looks worse than what we have.--Den fryktedehodet 18:03, November 6, 2010 (UTC) **Could you please elaborate on why ShoutWiki looks worse than Wikia in your opinion? --Mary-Kate 21:21, November 6, 2010 (UTC) **Sure thing. From what i've seen, it looks like wikipedia back when wikipedia was just starting. Which, inmy honest opinion, is worse than what we have here. yes wikia staff sucks, yes this new skin is annoying, but it we'd be worse off moving completely rather than just buckling down and dealing. At least at this moment of time. Cheers,--Den fryktedehodet 21:52, November 6, 2010 (UTC) * – Yeah, I hate Oasis. Yeah, it kills my browser. Yeah, it looks unneedlessly tacky. But honestly, moving to Shoutwiki seems a little… underdone. It’s harder to get a good measure of that place, and yeah, there was a sort of inherent coolness about the H*Bad own because it was our OWN PRIVATE DOMAIN. But now, move now seems to be a whole good deal darker. So yeah, it’s harder to see any real benefit aside from a skin we’re all learning to live with. Despise, but learning to live with. Sorry guys. [[User:Tuckerscreator|''Tuckerscreator]](stalk) 04:00, November 8, 2010 (UTC) Against (16/3) * - Although I can understand why everyone's upset about this (I agree that the new skin is inferior to the old one), I think that leaving is an overreaction. At the end of the day, we ''are a community website that is being hosted for free by Wikia. As such, Wikia has the right to make the changes it wants to regardless of how we feel about it. I haven't really been paying much attention to this debate up until now, so I don't know if we've got another, similar free site sitting out there for us to migrate to. However, I think that moving will cause more problems than it will solve, problems that really aren't worth an annoying change of skin. **Wikia isn't the only free wiki host out there, although it's the most well-known as of now. --Mary-Kate 21:21, November 6, 2010 (UTC) * - To be honest, we'll be moving into a situation no better than what we're in. I'll break it down into chunks for you. **Ads: We'll still be getting them, its not going to vastly change. If we want them gone, we need to pay a charge. **Monaco: Moving to shoutwiki isn't going to be some kind of glorious return to the old Monaco skin. If we want Monaco skin, we have to wait for them to fix it, then we have it, only for six months. After six months we have to pay to keep Monaco. Basically, unless we pay we're stuck with bare bone features. **Charges: We want ads gone, charge, other features will be charged in the future, though what features, and what charge is unclear. **Things we'll lose: Forums are apparently not very workable, no inhouse blogs on shoutwiki, social features require activation. **Sum it up, if we move to Shoutwiki, we'll lose the majority of the features we've gained and have to pay to get a few of them back. **Oh, more things to share. We'll lose the majority of our traffic through here (from both Halopedias and Wikia. Shoutwiki community isn't nearly as big **Yes, wikia may not be that bothered about the community, but they can do what they want. they own it after all, and if you didn't know the reason for some of the changes, i'll educate yer ***Screen resolution is fixed to ensure articles look the same on all screens, from laptops to wide screens. On my laptop its actually close to fine. That's still fixed by about twenty lines of copied and pasted code. ***Monaco was heavy on the server and glitchi, which is why we have Oasis. ***Ads keep up wikia's funding and stop it from going under. Simple apps for your internet browser will fix this without affecting Wikia's income. ****I think you misinterpreted some of these. DPLforum extension will be available on request for all wikis for free, it's just that it's a lame extension as opposed to a real forum (say, phpBB). "In-house blogs" on Wikia are an epic hack, as anyone capable of reading PHP will tell you. Besides, if you want a blog, maybe you should use WordPress or other dedicated blogging software instead of MediaWiki — MediaWiki is a wiki software. Social tools (the things you currently see on Halopedia) are available on request, too; I think that it's safe to assume that individual wiki owners/administrators/communities can decide on their own if they want those features or not. ****''Sum it up, if we move to Shoutwiki, we'll lose the majority of the features we've gained and have to pay to get a few of them back.'' — this is simply not true. ****''Monaco was heavy on the server and glitchi, which is why we have Oasis'' — or in other words, "we're too lazy to do this properly, let's remove it and replace it with an entirely different skin". Monaco is not heavy on the servers, or if it was, then someone didn't know how to code efficient code. Unless you have proof about Monaco's impact on a server, I'm calling this claim a blatant lie and nothing else. --Mary-Kate 21:21, November 6, 2010 (UTC) * - I have to agree with Ajax and Actene on this one. I believe that this is a minor inconvience that is going to cost far more money then should be nessecary. I think be better to think for the future, rather then the present, as in time, we will likely adapt to Oasis. --Gunnery Sergeant Pete Stacker, 00:49, November 6, 2010 (UTC) ::Biscuits, its not going to cost money, as per the discussion page on moving to Shoutwiki. * - Honestly... the skin is bearable. It's not like it's some end all, horrific, experience-killing abomination. Besides which: our staff (namely Subs) have already gone to work on improving it and making it more familiar. **You clearly aren't using Internet Explorer (which, unsurprsingly enough, is the browser that most people use). This very page looks quite ugly in IE8. --Mary-Kate 21:21, November 6, 2010 (UTC) * - I have grown to like the new skin, and with Adblock Plus and 118's CSS changes it doesn't look too bad. Spartan 112 02:50, November 6, 2010 (UTC) * - Honestly, As per, what Ajax said, moving to shoutwiki is a lot more trouble than it's worth **needed --Mary-Kate 21:21, November 6, 2010 (UTC) * - Look, sure Oasis sucks, or at least WIkia's act of not giving us a choice sucks, but honestly, with the CSS coding, Subtank and CT's theme meanderings, and just getting used to seeing it for a few weeks, the current look and operation of HF doesn't seem immensely or irrevocably impacted by the change. Moving the entire site doesn't solve the real issue with why people are pissed on HF. * - Sure, Oasis is a pain, but for me, moving would be even more of a pain. A.O.A., Administrator of Ace Combat Fanon 10:32, November 6, 2010 (UTC) * - While I still have complaints, Oasis is starting to work for me. With 118's fix, I'm starting to find it as usable as Monaco, and I don't have any issues with this "deluge" of ads (mainly because I can't actually see any :-P ). I've seen Halopedia's move, and quite honestly, I haven't liked what I've seen. Just use 118's fix, okay?--The All-knowing Sith'ari 12:43, November 6, 2010 (UTC) * - While Monaco is superior, Oasis (like Michael Jacksons' death) is just an expected thing which only needs some getting used to. --Gruntijackal, the impending demise draws near 13:52, November 6, 2010 (UTC) **Yes, it's expected that Wikia changes the default skin by force every two years. Just wait and see. --Mary-Kate 21:21, November 6, 2010 (UTC) * - Much as I'm all for some sort of ragequit from Wikia in response to their disregard for the feelings of the community, I honestly don't think it would be in the best interests of Halo Fanon to do this. Yes, the new skin is not fantastic and the old one was better, yes, Wikia seems to have a hard time listening to us (which seems to beat the skin itself as the prime cause of irritation). But the skin has been drastically improved thanks to Subtank's tinkering and css altering to the point where it's bearable. Moving in protest to Wikia's behaviour won't change it, as they've behaved like this over numerous issues in the past where there was similar community resistance. If we move, we'll achieve nothing and inconvenience ourselves in the process. **''If we move, we'll achieve nothing and inconvenience ourselves in the process'' — how can you be so sure? How many wikis have you helped to move? --Mary-Kate 21:21, November 6, 2010 (UTC) * I like Oasis. I could care less about the width, it does make text easier to read since lines are shorter, and it modernizes the overall look. My Tools also makes some aspects of routine activity easier too. -- 17:14, November 6, 2010 (UTC) ::You like Oasis and everyone else must like it too? --Mary-Kate 21:21, November 6, 2010 (UTC) :::Um, why the f--k should you care? Did I not just f--king say I like Oasis? What's it to you? And to answer you're senseless question, I am one of the few people here who like Oasis, the others just don't want to deal with the move, for the most part. -- 17:55, November 7, 2010 (UTC) * Now this is where I confuse the people who saw me vote FOR a Halopedia move. There's a reason why I'm voting no for a Halo Fanon move, and that's because despite all this Har Har over Oasis, with 118's fix, and with subbles working brilliantly here for us, Oasis is becoming better. Also I see no adverts. Jaws * I honestly don't think it's necessary to move at this time. And while ShoutWiki has been all too gracious and friendly, we don't need to go through the hassle to transfer all of our content simply because our skin got changed and Wikia's been a bit less friendly when it comes to what free users of their server space can do on their bandwidth. SPARTAN-091Bureau] [Talk] 01:31, November 7, 2010 (UTC) * It's all been said already. * Per above. * This big debate for a skin change? It takes some time to get used to - give it that time. No offense, but I wonder how many of you were hating on monaco once it was released... Angel54 Comments I was going to put this into the votes section as a neutral vote, but seeing as I most likely don't fit vote requirements, I'll add my input here. The truth of the matter is, wikia's face is dynamic; as uberfuzzy said, each feature had trouble with monaco in contrast to the older code. While starting from scratch may have been a smart move, it could have been avoided completely if they didn't keep using a bunch of hacks to run their software. My general view is that they've turned wikia dynamic and shifted it from its "perfect" state as it was before all the modern features came along (examples such as the Rich Text Editor and userbox generator). I there's always something to be said for not fixing something that works, eh? As for monobook being disabled on wikipedia... not true. Click here for proof. As for Halo Fanon's move itself, I have to concur with both sides of the arguments. I say this because the same sort of issues popped up when I proposed Halopedia's move, and willingly I admit that I did secretly agree with a few of the opposing votes (that brought up valid concerns). As it is, we went ahead and did it; as we saw and can see now, Halopedia turned out exceptionally well on its new domain, more so than we expected, so to speak. Not to mention that is operates somewhat faster than its wikia counterpart, which is another good plus. The same may or may not be to be said for Halo Fanon. The issue here is that there's a significant difference between the case of the the two wikis; Halo Fanon is double in size yet twice as small as a community and traffic wise. Not a surprise, really. What makes this an issue is that on an independent domain, Halo Fanon would see things much harder. While it has significantly less traffic and edits everyday compared to its sister site, maintaining a bunch more of articles it contains would cost quite a bit of money. Then there's the solution to move it to another wiki farm, Shoutwiki. As a farm, I say its pretty neat: Upholds more basic and traditional methods of wiki editing and presentation, but still has features that are available on-demand, as Mary-Kate stated. Giving the admins and community overall the choice of what they went on that individual wiki is a nice thing, something that isn't currently an option on wikia. But then again, there is something to be said for Shoutwiki making Monaco as shareware, but you can't really blame them at the end of the day. Looking at the oppose section, I think there's is both a mix of valid points and some misunderstandings (some of which Mary-Kate corrected). The main one regarding Monaco; Monaco, contrary to popular belief, does not use up much if any more resources than another skin would. Perhaps wikia's version does, and it wouldn't surprise me given the mountain of features wikia has topped onto it. Really, Mary-Kate summed everything up for you in that area. Other than that, Monaco is simply a skin like any other you can find on wikis today. The amount of energy a skin eats up depends on what you customize it with, not what the skin itself is. The only difference between Monaco and most other skins is that its somewhat more customizable, but that's it. Oasis itself isn't the best or best customizable skin I've seen, but then again, I have to remark the nice work put into it by Subtank and Tony to make Halo Fanon look pretty good with it. Oasis in my opinion, is a skin that makes certain wikis look nice but others bad. The latter in Halopedia's case, at least compared to Halo Fanon, which was indeed a major reason for its move. If Oasis had the same width it has on Wowwiki, some re-arrangement/addition of its features that were similarly present in Monaco and a few other tweaks here and there, I could probably call it perfect. "But then again". Pros and cons are popping up together and canceling each other out in the case of this move. I could go on forever if I could. If I were to put in a vote, as I said already, I would pretty much stand next to those in the neutral section along with a mix of supportive and opposing reasons. This is a wiki; you can add, remove or replace any number of factors, but you're still going to have problems, similar or different, simply because its a freely accessible site with no restrictions. No matter what you do, you're bound to have issues regardless. Its only a matter of minimizing them as much as possible. Many of us don't like Oasis, but then again, for most its not Oasis itself that's bugging us. Its the fact that its been forced upon us, removing monaco, possibly monobook in the future, and the need to re-adapt to a change. The same thing happened last time, when Monaco came along. I guess its a common fact nowadays that history repeats itself, mhm? Regards, Nicmavr (talk)